Gibraltar Contr., Inc. v. Tully Constr., Inc.
This text of Gibraltar Contr., Inc. v. Tully Constr., Inc. (Gibraltar Contr., Inc. v. Tully Constr., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Gibraltar Contr., Inc. v Tully Constr., Inc.
2026 NY Slip Op 04257
July 2, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Gibraltar Contracting, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent,
v
Tully Construction, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
Decided and Entered: July 02, 2026
Index No. 653712/23|Appeal No. 7014|Case No. 2025-04171|
Before: Moulton, J.P., Mendez, Gesmer, O'neill Levy, Michael, JJ.
The DeIorio Law Group, PLLC, Rye Brook (Donna M. Mazza of counsel), for appellant.
Law Office of John J. Janiec, New York (John J. Janiec of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered on or about June 24, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as untimely was properly denied. Under the terms of the parties' agreement, "[a]pproval and payment by Owner is a condition precedent to [defendant contractor's] obligation to pay [plaintiff subcontractor]." Further, as relevant here, the agreement set forth that to trigger the contractual six-month limitation period for monetary claims, the owner had to give "final acceptance" of the work, and any monetary damages that were sought had become "due and payable hereunder." Although this Court previously determined that the six-month limitations period was not unreasonably short on its face (see Gibraltar Contr., Inc. v Tully Constr. Co. Inc., 234 AD3d 436, 437 [1st Dept 2025]), it is undisputed that defendant failed to establish if and when it had been paid by the owner to trigger the shortened contractual limitation period, and, in turn, failed to demonstrate that such limitation period is "reasonable as applied" (see Turner Constr. Co. v Nastasi & Assoc., Inc., 192 AD3d 103, 107 [1st Dept 2022]).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: July 2, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gibraltar Contr., Inc. v. Tully Constr., Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibraltar-contr-inc-v-tully-constr-inc-nyappdiv-2026.